Whistle-blower Suit Claims Northrop Faked Tests of GPS Systems

As reported by the LATimes: An employee of defense giant Northrop Grumman Inc. claims in a lawsuit that the company’s workers repeatedly took risky shortcuts and faked tests of navigational systems made for use in military fighter jets, drones and submarines.

Todd Donaldson, a longtime Northrop employee, says in his suit that the company sold the GPS systems to the Pentagon without performing a key test to ensure that they properly communicated with satellites.

Without that test, he said, there was “a grave danger of erroneous navigation, leading to crashes and weapons failing to hit their targets.”

Northrop declined to comment. “As a matter of policy, we do not comment on cases or issues in litigation,” said Randy Belote, the company's vice president of strategic communications.

Donaldson did not name any accidents that occurred because of malfunctions of Northrop’s navigational device known as the LN-100.

But in May 2011, Air Force investigators blamed the LN-100 for a crash of a Predator drone carrying a Hellfire missile in the north African Republic of Djibouti.

The investigators said the device recorded the drone’s altitude to be 400 feet higher than it actually was.

The crew, piloting the craft remotely, failed to see the problem, the investigators said, before the Predator flew into the ground.



The lawsuit was filed under a federal whistle-blower law that allows those who expose government fraud to keep part of any resulting financial settlement.

Donaldson filed the lawsuit two years ago but it was sealed from view of the company and the public until last week.

On Friday, Judge David Nuffer of U.S. District Court in Utah ordered the complaint unsealed after the federal government declined to join the case. He said the government can still decide to intervene.

The lawsuit was first reported by the Salt Lake City Tribune. Neither Donaldson nor his lawyer could be reached for comment.

Northrop’s division in Woodland Hills has sold thousands of the LN-100 navigational systems to the Pentagon and foreign customers.

The GPS system at issue is used on a myriad of military aircraft, including the F-22 Raptor and F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets, as well as the Predator and Northop’s own Global Hawk drones.

Donaldson said he worked his way up to the position of plant manager at Northop’s facility in Salt Lake City, where the navigational systems are assembled and tested.

But he was demoted, he said, after he complained that employees were faking tests of the devices.

Rather than performing the required 10-minute test, Donaldson said, employees were saving time by skipping the test and indicating in paperwork that the device had passed.

He said that he alerted Glenn Kemp, his supervisor, and Ken Bishop, a human relations executive, about the problems, but plant employees continued to “manually insert spurious data causing a ‘pass’ reading.”

How Private Space Companies Make Money Exploring The Final Frontier

As reported by the Universe Today: There’s a big difference in thinking between governments and the private companies that participate in space. While entities such as NASA can work on understanding basic human health or exploring the universe for the sake of a greater understanding, companies have a limitation: they need to eventually make a profit.

This was brought up in a human spaceflight discussion at the International Astronautical Congress today (Oct. 1), which included participants from agencies and companies alike. Below are some concepts for how private companies in the space world today are making their money.

“We have in space a movement towards more privatization … and also for more use of space activities in general and human space activity in the future by individual private persons,” said Johann Dietrich Worner, chairman of the executive board of DLR (Germany’s space agency), in the panel.

“You can imagine that even for the upcoming 10 to 20 to 30 years, the public funding is the basic funding for [space] activities while in other areas, we are already seeing that private money is doing its work if you look to communication and if you look to other activities, like for instance, research in space.”

But commercial spaceflight is already taking place, as some of these examples show.

Commercial crew

Would you ‘Enter the Dragon’?
First look inside SpaceX Dragon V2 next generation astronaut spacecraft unveiled by CEO Elon Musk on May 29, 2014. Credit: Robert Fisher/AmericaSpace

The two successful companies in NASA’s latest round of commercial contracts —SpaceX (Dragon) and Boeing (CST-100) — are each receiving government money to develop their private space taxis. The companies are responsible for meeting certain milestones to receive funds. There is quite the element of risk involved because the commercial contracts are only given out in stages; you could be partway through developing the spacecraft and then discover you will not be awarded one for the next round. This is what happened to Sierra Nevada Corp., whose Dream Chaser concept did not receive more money in the announcement last month. The company has filed a legal challenge in response.

Private space travel

Sir Richard Branson hugs designer Burt Rutan, surrounded by employees of Virgin Galactic, The SpaceShip Company, and Scaled Composites, and watch as Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShip2 streaks across the sky under rocket power, its first ever since the program began in 2005. Burt’s wife Tonya Rutan is at right taking their photo. The spacecraft was dropped from its “mothership,” WhiteKnight2, over the Mojave CA area on April 29, 2013, at high altitude before firing its hybrid power motor. Virgin Galactic hopes to become the first commercial space venture to bring multiple passengers into space on a regular basis.

Virgin Galactic and its founder, Richard Branson, are perhaps the most visible of the companies that are looking to bring private citizens into space — as long as they can pay $250,000 for a ride. The first flight of Virgin into space is expected in the next year. Customers must pay a deposit upfront upon registering and then the balance before they head into suborbit. In the case of Virgin, Branson has a portfolio of companies that can take on the financial risk during the startup phase, but eventually the company will look to turn a profit through the customer payments.

Ultrawideband Returns, This Time for High Resolution Indoor Location

As reported by GigaOM: The dead walk among us, and they are apparently shipping silicon. Ultrawideband, a radio technology that uses unlicensed spectrum to send massive files short distances, is back in a slightly different form, hoping this time to provide location data for the internet of things. Ultrawideband or UWB, was pushed in the early aughts as a way to wirelessly dock a monitor or TV to a computer, but because of infighting in the standards-setting committee and international spectrum allocation issues, it never got very far.

A half of dozen or so startups raised venture capital to build UWB chips and most of those were sold off and the standard itself was taken over by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group. But Decawave, a company based in Dublin, Ireland is now using UWB tech to offer granular, indoor location data. Decawave, which was formed in 2004 is set to ship about a million UWB radios this year and hopes to hit the 5 million mark in 2015 according to Mickael Viot, marketing manager at Decawave.

He claims that UWB can offer location data that is accurate to within 10 centimeters to about 30 centimeters, which makes sense given that the radios were originally designed to transmit a lot of data over a very short distance. The Decawave UWB tech can transmit data over longer distances, but the efficiency per bit is not as great. Customers in the industrial world and automotive are already using the technology, and a smart home customer is also looking at it to provide detailed tracking information for lost items via a stick-on tag.

Using UWB can offer higher data rates than Bluetooth Low Energy, and Viot claims that the modifications to the silicon that Decawave offers make for a chip that is still power-efficient. Right now, the form factor for the silicon is a bit large, but the next generation coming in 2015 will shrink the silicon and packaging to a more consumer-friendly size.

And like other radio technologies that haven’t yet found a home in handsets, UWB radios will need a transceiver somewhere within a set range to work. For example, in a home setting a 4,000 square foot home might require four transceivers to track location. Another example, Decawave offers — using the technology for personal security to unlock your tablets, phones and laptops – would require a radio built into each of those items. Given the perceived similarities with NFC, which Apple just adopted for the iPhone, this seems far-fetched.

And that lack of an establish ecosystem will be the challenge for Decawave and any other entities hoping to use UWB for location. Those entities include chip startup BeSpoon and French technology research organization CEA-Leti. 

Specialized radios need both a transceiver and receiver built into the ecosystem, which can be done if you are selling an industrial solution that will be implemented by IT departments or consultants, but it’s a tougher sell in the consumer market where people don’t want to stick additional boxes around their homes. They might for specific use cases, like tracking their dog, but the best bet for any radio silicon vendor is going to be getting your tech embedded in established hubs or smartphones.

Given Bluetooth’s dominance on the smartphone and the ability to use Wi-Fi to stream larger files, I’m not sure UWB will have much better luck this time around. I could be wrong — after all, the NFL just signed a deal to track football players using RFID, another radio tech that has similar limitations on the ecosystem front — but it’s going to be a tough slog for Decawave and others pushing UWB for the internet of things.

A Town Built for Driverless Cars

As reported by MIT Technology Review:  A mocked-up set of busy streets in Ann Arbor, Michigan, will provide the sternest test yet for self-driving cars. Complex intersections, confusing lane markings, and busy construction crews will be used to gauge the aptitude of the latest automotive sensors and driving algorithms; mechanical pedestrians will even leap into the road from between parked cars so researchers can see if they trip up onboard safety systems.

The urban setting will be used to create situations that automated driving systems have struggled with, such as subtle driver-pedestrian interactions, unusual road surfaces, tunnels, and tree canopies, which can confuse sensors and obscure GPS signals.



“If you go out on the public streets you come up against rare events that are very challenging for sensors,” says Peter Sweatman, director of the University of Michigan’s Mobility Transformation Center, which is overseeing the project. “Having identified challenging scenarios, we need to re-create them in a highly repeatable way. We don’t want to be just driving around the public roads.”

Google and others have been driving automated cars around public roads for several years, albeit with a human ready to take the wheel if necessary. Most automated vehicles use accurate digital maps and satellite positioning, together with a suite of different sensors, to navigate safely.

Highway driving, which is less complex than city driving, has proved easy enough for self-driving cars, but busy downtown streets—where cars and pedestrians jockey for space and behave in confusing and surprising ways—are more problematic.

“I think it’s a great idea,” says John Leonard, a professor at MIT who led the development of a self-driving vehicle for a challenge run by DARPA in 2007. “It is important for us to try to collect statistically meaningful data about the performance of self-driving cars. Repeated operations—even in a small-scale environment—can yield valuable data sets for testing and evaluating new algorithms.”

The simulation is being built on the edge of the University of Michigan’s campus with funding from the Michigan Department of Transportation and 13 companies involved with developing automated driving technology. It is scheduled to open next spring. It will consist of four miles of roads with 13 different intersections.



Even Google, which has an ambitious vision of vehicle automation, acknowledges that urban driving is a significant challenge. Speaking at an event in California this July, Chris Urmson, who leads the company’s self-driving car project, said several common urban situations remain thorny (see “Urban Jungle a Tough Challenge for Google’s Autonomous Car”). Speaking with MIT Technology Review last month, Urmson gave further details about as-yet-unsolved scenarios (see “Hidden Obstacles for Google’s Self-Driving Cars”).

Such challenges notwithstanding, the first automated cars will go into production shortly. General Motors announced last month that a 2017 Cadillac will be the first car to offer entirely automated driving on highways. It’s not yet clear how the system will work—for example, how it will ensure that the driver isn’t too distracted to take the wheel in an emergency, or under what road conditions it might refuse to take the wheel—but in some situations, the car’s Super Cruise system will take care of steering, braking, and accelerating.

Another technology to be tested in the simulated town is vehicle-to-vehicle communications. The University of Michigan recently concluded a government-funded study in Ann Arbor involving thousands of vehicles equipped with transmitters that broadcast position, direction of travel, speed, and other information to other vehicles and to city infrastructure. The trial showed that vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications could prevent many common accidents by providing advanced warning of a possible collision.



“One of the interesting things, from our point of view, is what extra value you get by combining automation and car-to-car communications”, Sweatman says. “What happens when you put the two together—how much faster can you deploy it?”

Recent Studies Indicate Auto Phone Systems, Apple Siri Distract Drivers

As reported by the LATimes: In many cars, making a hands-free phone call can be more distracting than picking up your phone, according to a new study from AAA and the University of Utah.

In-dash phone systems are overly complicated and prone to errors, the study found, and the same is true for voice-activated functions for music and navigation.

A companion study also found that trying to use Siri — the voice control system on Apple phones — while driving was dangerously distracting. Two participants in the study had virtual crashes in an automotive simulator while attempting to use Siri, the study's authors reported.

"We already know that drivers can miss stop signs, pedestrians and other cars while using voice technologies," said Bob Darbelnet, chief executive of AAA. "We now understand that current shortcomings in these products, intended as safety features, may unintentionally cause greater levels of cognitive distraction."

The studies measured cognitive distraction — the mental workload required of a task — as opposed to the visual distraction, caused by drivers taking their eyes off the road, or physical distraction, such as reaching for a cellphone or brushing hair. The researchers used special test vehicles, heart-rate monitors and other equipment to measure how much mental distraction the systems generated. The systems were rated on a five-point scale, with five representing the most distracting.

Chevrolet's MyLink system, which the researchers tested in a 2013 Chevy Cruz Eco, scored the worst of the six systems from auto manufacturers.

It generated a distraction rating of 3.7 on the study's scoring protocol — compared with 2.45 for a hand-held cellphone. Three of the other systems rated as more distracting than a hand-held phone: Chrysler's UConnect System, 2.7; Ford's Sync with MyFord Touch system, 3.0; and Mercedes' Command system, 3.1.

Only Toyota's Entune, at 1.7, and Hyundai BlueLink, 2.2, scored better.

But the report doesn't recommend using a hand-held cellphone, either.

Studies by AAA and the University of Utah measured motorists' cognitive distraction, the mental workload required of a task. (Dan Campbell Photography / University of Utah and AAA)

"The primary task should be driving. Things that take your attention away make you a poor driver," said University of Utah psychology professor and study leader David Strayer. "Even though your car may be configured to support social media, texting and phone calls, it doesn't mean it is safe to do so."

The voice-based systems distracted drivers because they are too complex and made too many errors in recognizing voice commands, according to the research.

"Drivers were cursing the systems out," Strayer says. "If you want to buy one of these cars, make sure you can actually use the voice-based technology before you leave the lot."

Automakers discounted the findings, noting that the research did not document that cognitive distraction leads to crashes. Conversely, physical activities, such as reaching for a phone, texting or reading emails while driving do create distractions that cause collisions.



A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study released last year concluded that physical and visual distractions triple the risk of crashes.

That's why Chevrolet installs a voice-command system and steering wheel button controls in its vehicles, said Annalisa Bluhm, a GM spokeswoman.

"We feel that hands on the wheel and eyes on the road is critical to safe vehicle operation," Bluhm said.

Toyota said the study did not show a link between cognitive distraction and car crashes.

"The results actually tell us very little about the relative benefits of in-vehicle versus hand-held systems; or about the relationship between cognitive load and crash risks," said Mike Michels, a Toyota spokesman.

Still, Toyota said it supported AAA's commitment to studying the cognitive demands of various tasks and helping prevent distracted driving incidents. The automaker said it was pleased to score well in the study.

The study of cognitive distraction is still evolving, said AAA spokeswoman Nancy White.

"However, with more than 3,000 people killed a year due to driver distraction, it's what we don't know about distraction that should be of concern," White said.

White noted that the research proves that automakers and phone-makers can and should design systems that are less complex and more intuitive — and safer.

Siri was notable for producing "different responses to seemingly identical commands," the researchers wrote.

In some instances, the Apple system required exact phrases to accomplish a specific task. It wouldn't understand subtle deviations from that phrasing. It also required drivers to start over when it made a dictation error in a message, because it offered no way to edit.

"Siri also made mistakes such as calling someone other than the desired person from the phone contact list," the study said. "Some participants also reported frustration with Siri's sarcasm and wit."  

Apple said the study did not test CarPlay or Siri Eyes Free, which the company has designed for drivers to access features and apps they want in the car with minimized distraction. However, CarPlay is a new system that is just rolling out in some 2015 model year cars. Siri Eyes Free also is fairly new, only widely available in some car brands starting in the 2014 model year.

Marriott Fined $600K for Jamming Guests’ Hotspots, Forcing Them onto Paid WiFi

As reported by Yahoo Tech: Marriott International will pay a $600,000 fine for jamming conference attendees’ WiFi networks at its Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center, forcing them to pay hefty prices to use the hotel’s own connection.

Frequent travelers often carry personal WiFi hotspots — tiny devices that can connect to the Internet via cellphone towers. For $50 a month, they can connect to the Internet on the move, often avoiding hefty fees charged by hotels, airports, and conference facilities. Some people upgrade their wireless data plans to make their smartphones into hotspots.

Last year, a conference attendee at the Opryland hotel in Nashville, Tennessee — which is managed by Marriott — found that the hotel was jamming devices in its ballrooms and complained to the Federal Communications Commission. In the complaint, the guest noted that the same thing happened previously at another Gaylord property. The block didn’t affect WiFi access in guest rooms.

While jamming personal WiFi connections, Marriott was charging conference organizers and exhibitors between $250 and $1,000 per access point to use the Gaylord’s WiFi connection. The FCC declined to release the initial guest complaint except if requested under the Freedom of Information Act, a process that can often take weeks.

Marriott agreed to the fine and has instructed its hotels not to use the jamming technology in the way it was used at Opryland, according to the FCC. But the company on Friday defended the blocking of guests’ own WiFi networks in the interest of network security. The company said it is legal to use FCC-approved technology to protect its WiFi service against “rogue wireless hotspots that can cause degraded service, insidious cyber-attacks and identity theft,” adding that hospitals and universities employ similar jamming practices.

At the four Gaylord hotels in the U.S., Marriott today monitors for hotspots causing interference but does not automatically block such connections, said Harvey Kellman, a lawyer for the hotel company. Only a handful of Marriott’s 4,000 other hotels worldwide currently screen for hotspot interference.

Marriott said it encourages the FCC to change its rules “to eliminate the ongoing confusion” and “to assess the merits of its underlying policy.”

The government said people who purchase cellular data plans should be able to use them without fear that their personal connection will be blocked.

"It is unacceptable for any hotel to intentionally disable personal hotspots while also charging consumers and small businesses high fees to use the hotel’s own Wi-Fi network," Travis LeBlanc, chief of the FCC’s enforcement bureau, said in a statement. "This practice puts consumers in the untenable position of either paying twice for the same service or forgoing Internet access altogether."